As Carolyn Snyder writes, “Paper prototyping is a variation of usability testing where the representative users perform realistic tasks by interacting with a paper version of the interface that is manipulated by a person ‘playing computer’ who doesn't explain how the interface is intended to work.” In this assignment, your team will conduct a heuristic evaluation of its paper prototype, and each individual will help out another team by evaluating their prototype. This will complete the first iteration of your project, providing you with the feedback you need to begin implementing.
Due: 24 hours before the beginning of class on week 5
Collaboration: This is both a group and an individual assignment. You will conduct a heuristic evaluation with your group, but you will evaluate an interface and submit your findings individually. You may not consult anyone for advice when evaluating individually.
Everyone should come prepared to discuss how it felt to be an expert evaluator. Selected groups will give a short presentation that discusses the following:
- How it felt to watch your prototype being evaluated
- What problems you found with your prototype.
Presenting teams can refer to their project wiki page on the screen when making their presentation. All must be present, but teams should choose one person to be their primary speaker.
Each team should create an Assignment 4 wiki page by copying the A4 submission template G1 G2.
You will submit on wiki:
- An overview that states which team you evaluated and what letter you were assigned.
- A list of at least 10 problems. Each problem should mention the following:
- A number for the problem
- A short name
- One heuristic related to this problem
- A severity rating
- A short description
- Any proposed solution you wish you mention
- A brief reflection on the experience.
Your team will submit on wiki:
- A compiled list of problems found by your evaluators, sorted by severity, with solutions (or explanations) for each problem.
Here is a sample from a previous term. Evaluators B & D did very well, though evaluator should have found 10 problems. The team compiled the evaluation very well. (Please note that the evaluators did not follow the format you are supposed to follow, because they did not write out the full heuristic names and severity ratings.)